By Kim Seong-kon, Professor of English Language Literature

Many misunderstandings arise when we confuse two different concepts. In Korea, for example, we often confuse egalitarianism with communism. There is a joke that says"pyeongdeung" (egalitarianism) is found in equal"pyeongsu" (apartment size) and"deung-su" (academic or social rank) among all people. The leftists proclaim that since pyongsu and deungsu determine one's social prestige in Korean society, we should equally distribute wealth and create a classless society to solve the country's problems. On the other hand, the rightists complain that the leftists are trying to take away what we have earned and achieved through hard work, namely our personal possessions and social positions.

During the leftist Roh administration, the poor abominated the rich, thinking that the latter had extorted what was rightfully theirs. The young loathed the old, assuming that the latter unjustly enjoyed privileges. Naturally, juniors revolted against seniors, subordinates against superiors, and employees against employers. While radicals celebrated the socialist revolution, conservatives lamented the unprecedented disruption of social order. Unfortunately, this phenomenon still continues in today's Korean society.

Another word Koreans tend to misconstrue is"freedom." Perhaps due to our history of colonization and our freedom-fighting past, many Koreans conflate"freedom" with"do as you wish." The liberation in 1945 gave us the freedom, only to be deprived of this freedom by military dictators for nearly three decades. We valiantly fought against the tyranny and finally restored our long-lost freedom in the late 1980s. As a result, we have come to believe that we have every right to do anything we desire, which we mistake as the essence of"freedom." Freedom, however, entails responsibility; one cannot freely break the law, assault others or infringe on another's right. Nonetheless, we often confuse freedom with unruliness.

"Democracy" is another word many Koreans misinterpret. We tend to think that democracy is solely based on majority rule. But democracy is much more than that. If a society simply operates under majority rule, it can easily evolve into a totalitarian society driven by the tyranny of the masses. South Korean radicals often resort to massive demonstrations which they mistakenly call a"democratic movement," while completely ignoring minority voices. Democracy, however, should include respecting individuality and the opinion of minorities.

Individuality, too, is a term Koreans often misunderstand. Living in a group-oriented society, we easily confuse individuality with"selfishness" or"egotism," and therefore see it as something obnoxious and impudent. But individuality is a positive concept that encourages uniqueness, self-reliance, and personal integrity. Only a totalitarian society does not allow individuality to exist.

Koreans also seem to confuse"morally flawless" with"politically competent," believing that only an impeccable person should be appointed as a high-ranking government official. Of course, we cannot expect a corrupt man to serve the nation properly. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that a morally immaculate man is necessarily a competent politician or administrator. Besides, a stubborn moralist without flexibility is likely to terrorize his ministry and lack the diplomatic skills necessary to run a harmonious government. We should give a nominee a chance as long as he does not have any decisive, outstanding flaws that might cripple his performance as a civil servant.

Yet our politicians ruthlessly dig up a nominee's past to find any fault to strike him down. As a result, the nominee is held responsible for a host of things, ranging from events that happened long ago to the things that have nothing to do with him. For example, a nominee's exemption from military duty 40 years ago should not pose a problem in his ability to perform today; even crimes are subject to a statute of limitations. Furthermore, one should not be held responsible for his adult son's dual citizenship. Hopelessly confusing the position of a politician with that of a moralist, however, we are so merciless to otherwise competent nominees as they undergo the National Assembly hearing.

Another controversial issue is the so-called"self-plagiarism." Whenever a scholar is nominated for a cabinet position, our politicians and reporters bring up the issue of the so-called"self-plagiarism." But"self-plagiarism" is a tricky word. Plagiarism occurs when you use other's ideas or writings without their permission; you cannot plagiarize yourself, per se. Publishing two identical articles in two different journals may be unethical. However, it would not be a problem as long as it was done under the editor's request or authorization, and as long as you did not count them as two separate papers to inflate your achievements. It would not be right, therefore, if we accuse a scholar of self-plagiarism only because he did duplicate publication.

Confusing different values and ideas inevitably brings forth chaos. In order to avoid unnecessary disorder, we must not misinterpret important principles like egalitarianism, democracy and freedom in whatever way we wish. Rather, we must comprehensively clarify our misunderstandings, and comply with the true, universal meanings of these important values and principles so that they do not harm, but rather improve our society.